This section is intended to introduce the reader to various aspects of art that may be related to various aspects of the present techniques, which are described and/or claimed below. This discussion is believed to be helpful in providing the reader with background information to facilitate a better understanding of the various aspects of the present disclosure. Accordingly, it should be understood that these statements are to be read in this light, and not as admissions of prior art.
Numerous electronic devices are now capable of connecting to wireless networks. For example, smart meter technology employs a wireless network to communicate electrical energy consumption data associated with residential properties back to a utility for monitoring, billing, and the like. As such, a number of wireless networking standards are currently available to enable electronic devices to communicate with each other. Some smart meter implementations, for instance, employ Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) over Low power Wireless Personal Area Networks (6LoWPAN) to enable electronic devices to communicate with a smart meter. However, the currently available wireless networking standards such as 6LoWPAN may not be generally well equipped to support electronic devices dispersed throughout a residence or home for one or more practical scenarios. That is, the currently available wireless networking standards may not efficiently connect all electronic devices of a network in a secure yet simple, consumer-friendly manner in view of one or more known practical constraints. Moreover, for one or more practical scenarios, the currently available wireless networking standards may not provide an efficient way to add new electronic devices to an existing wireless network in an ad hoc manner.
Additionally, when providing a wireless network standard for electronic devices for use in and around a home, it would be beneficial to use a wireless network standard that provides an open protocol for different devices to learn how to gain access to the network. Also, given the number of electronic devices that may be associated with a home, it would be beneficial that the wireless network standard be capable of supporting Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) communication such that each device may have a unique IP address and may be capable of being accessed via the Internet, via a local network in a home environment, and the like. Further, it would be beneficial for the wireless network standard to allow the electronic devices to communicate within the wireless network using a minimum amount of power. With these features in mind, it is believed that one or more shortcomings is presented by each known currently available wireless networking standard in the context of providing a low power, IPv6-based, wireless mesh network standard that has an open protocol and can be used for electronic devices in and around a home. For example, wireless network standards such as Bluetooth®, Dust Networks®, Z-wave®, WiFi, and ZigBee® fail to provide one or more of the desired features discussed above.
Bluetooth®, for instance, generally provides a wireless network standard for communicating over short distances via short-wavelength radio transmissions. As such, Bluetooth's® wireless network standard may not support a communication network of a number of electronic devices disposed throughout a home. Moreover, Bluetooth's® wireless network standard may not support wireless mesh communication or IPv6 addresses.
As mentioned above, the wireless network standard provide by Dust Networks® may also bring about one or more shortcomings with respect to one or more features that would enable electronic devices disposed in a home to efficiently communicate with each other. In particular, Dust Networks′® wireless network standard may not provide an open protocol that may be used by others to interface with the devices operating on Dust Networks' network. Instead, Dust Networks® may be designed to facilitate communication between devices located in industrial environments such as assembly lines, chemical plants, and the like. As such, Dust Networks'® wireless network standard may be directed to providing a reliable communication network that has pre-defined time windows in which each device may communicate to other devices and listen for instructions from other devices. In this manner, Dust Networks′® wireless network standard may require sophisticated and relatively expensive radio transmitters that may not be economical to implement with consumer electronic devices for use in the home.
Like Dust Networks'® wireless network standard, the wireless network standard associated with Z-wave® may not be an open protocol. Instead, Z-wave's® wireless network standard may be available only to authorized clients that embed a specific transceiver chip into their device. Moreover, Z-wave's® wireless network standard may not support IPv6-based communication. That is, Z-wave's® wireless network standard may require a bridge device to translate data generated on a Z-wave® device into IP-based data that may be transmitted via the Internet.
Referring now to ZigBee's® wireless network standards, ZigBee® has two standards commonly known as ZigBee® Pro and ZigBee® IP. Moreover, ZigBee® Pro may have one or more shortcomings in the context of support for wireless mesh networking Instead, ZigBee® Pro may depend at least in part on a central device that facilitates communication between each device in the ZigBee® Pro network. In addition to the increased power requirements for that central device, devices that remain on to process or reject certain wireless traffic can generate additional heat within their housings that may alter some sensor readings, such as temperature readings, acquired by the device. Since such sensor readings may be useful in determining how each device within the home may operate, it may be beneficial to avoid unnecessary generation of heat within the device that may alter sensor readings. Additionally, ZigBee® Pro may not support IPv6 communication.
Referring now to ZigBee® IP, ZigBee® IP may bring about one or more shortcomings in the context of direct device-to-device communication. ZigBee® IP is directed toward the facilitation of communication by relay of device data to a central router or device. As such, the central router or device may require constant powering and therefore may not represent a low power means for communications among devices. Moreover, ZigBee® IP may have a practical limit in the number of nodes (i.e., ˜20 nodes per network) that may be employed in a single network. Further, ZigBee® IP uses a “Ripple” routing protocol (RPL) that may exhibit high bandwidth, processing, and memory requirements, which may implicate additional power for each ZigBee® IP connected device.
Like the ZigBee® wireless network standards discussed above, WiFi's wireless network may exhibit one or more shortcomings in terms of enabling communications among devices having low-power requirements. For example, WiFi's wireless network standard may also require each networked device to always be powered up, and furthermore may require the presence of a central node or hub. As known in the art, WiFi is a relatively common wireless network standard that may be ideal for relatively high bandwidth data transmissions (e.g., streaming video, syncing devices). As such, WiFi devices are typically coupled to a continuous power supply or rechargeable batteries to support the constant stream of data transmissions between devices. Further, WiFi's wireless network may not support wireless mesh networking.